Religion II

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

I'm not angry.
Supernatural claims are by definition impossible to test. So what's the point?
Not theoretically correct. Theoretically possible. There's a difference.
Again, not theoretically correct but theoretically possible. I don't think one has ever been discovered. What's your point?

The point. I was teasing you, which I clearly stated in my post.

I just took the opportunity to tease you based on a scientific theory.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Very true. The bigger picture is why would anyone have to defend anyone just because one is a member of the same organization, ethnic group, or nation? Do I have to defend Henry Ford for financially and intellectually supporting Hitler, because Ford and I are both U.S. citizens? How about Charles Lindbergh, or the U.S. eugenic movement supporting Hitler, do I need to defend them too? Of course not the whole idea is ludicrous.

Well said.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But this is how you guys work: Write lengthy books, voluminous reports, verbose emails...whatever... because you figure the more words you toss at the side of the barn and the more complicated you make it, some of it will stick and the more legitimate your case will appear. You figure the more you dress up your pig, the more difficult it will be to uncover her nakedness with the laws of logic.

You have just described how religion works. If it's all about verbosity then the theists are experts. There are over 800,000 words in the Bible. If you combine The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, The End of Faith, and Breaking the Spell how many words do you get? Go to any brick and mortar bookstore and you will find that books on religion outnumber books by skeptics by ten to one. Wal Mart does not even carry books by skeptics.

Netflix has 75 movies in their "faith and spirituality" section, not counting Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments. As best I can discover there are only 5 movies about skepticism.

I have posted five times in my current series on science and they total less than 1600 words. I think your word count exceeds mine and I don't have a staff like you do. You should be able to read them all in less than 10 minutes. If you don't have that kind of time, fine with me. However, until you've read them you have no right to accuse me of equivocation. If you do read them and find anything you perceive to be equivocation please bring it to my attention and I will address it.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The point. I was teasing you, which I clearly stated in my post.

So you don't really believe in the resurrection?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

So you don't really believe in the resurrection?

Jesus' Resurrection is a miracle, a supernatural event. Anything else would be self-defeating to my faith.

There maybe a theoretically possible resurrection too, besides The Resurrection. I don't believe Jesus resurrected due to science.

Science is only a method of acquiring knowledge. Science does not cause anything to happen.

[Show Me the Wire]

Okay Actor:

I have a question for you, based on your responses. Do you believe science actually causes anything to happen?

[Lose The Juice]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Your mind boggles, "Juice?"
Why?
Why should boxcar have to defend a Priest of a Faith he doesn't ascribe to?
boxcar has never claimed to be a Catholic?
If your argument is against Christianity, state your case and why.
Otherwise, you are remiss in not reading the many thousands of posts that preceded the Religion II thread in the original Religion thread and should be given some forgiveness.

Props for the random bolding (fun!), and for that rather interesting use of the word "ascribe."

I don't know what Boxcar has claimed to be, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to read the endless maunderings of barstool philosophers about the supposed pensees of St. Braulio of Baeza in 361 A.D.

I addressed myself to this:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
. Besides...biblical Christianity is nothing less than Fulfilled Judaism...


Is it really? What part of Judaism (or anything remotely ethical) did Father Tiso and his appalling pro-Nazi regime fulfill?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see anything there specifically about Methodism or Calvinism, or whatever non-Catholic faith the poster may follow. Of course, I mentioned the Huguenots favorably, IIRC, but I digress... is it your view that the Protestant faiths are not, um, Christian?


More to the point, do you know who Father Tiso was? I suspect not. Books are your friends.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Okay Actor:

I have a question for you, based on your responses. Do you believe science actually causes anything to happen?

Define science. If by science you mean the scientific community then, yes, science causes things to happen. Things like the eradication of smallpox. If you mean science as a tool then, no. That's like asking if a hammer builds a house.

Now, in all fairness, ask the same question of religion. Does religion actually cause anything to happen?

[Show Me the Wire]

Speaking of current and therefore more dangerous than, than dead ones,anti-Semites, Linda Sansour is the commencement speaker for NYC University. I would worry about current affairs and not a terrible event which happened almost 70 years ago.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Define science. If by science you mean the scientific community then, yes, science causes things to happen. Things like the eradication of smallpox. If you mean science as a tool then, no. That's like asking if a hammer builds a house.

Now, in all fairness, ask the same question of religion. Does religion actually cause anything to happen?

Knowledge enables us to cure disease. Knowledge acquired through a method. A person cures the disease, applying the knowledge gained.

And yes religion causes things to happen.

[Show Me the Wire]

applied science
1
n the discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/applied%20science

Applied science is a discipline of science that applies existing scientific knowledge to develop more practical applications, like technology or inventions. Applied science is a discipline of science that applies existing scientific knowledge to develop more practical applications, like technology or inventions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science

1
: put to practical use applied art; especially : applying general principles to solve definite problems. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/applied
[emphasis added]

Science does not cause anything to happen. Science is a method to gain knowledge and a way to apply or use the acquired knowledge.

You are not welcome to your own facts Actor.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You have just described how religion works. If it's all about verbosity then the theists are experts. There are over 800,000 words in the Bible. If you combine The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, The End of Faith, and Breaking the Spell how many words do you get? Go to any brick and mortar bookstore and you will find that books on religion outnumber books by skeptics by ten to one. Wal Mart does not even carry books by skeptics.

Netflix has 75 movies in their "faith and spirituality" section, not counting Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments. As best I can discover there are only 5 movies about skepticism.

I have posted five times in my current series on science and they total less than 1600 words. I think your word count exceeds mine and I don't have a staff like you do. You should be able to read them all in less than 10 minutes. If you don't have that kind of time, fine with me. However, until you've read them you have no right to accuse me of equivocation. If you do read them and find anything you perceive to be equivocation please bring it to my attention and I will address it.

I would beg to differ. It didn't take me very many words at all to falsify atheistic naturalism via the Law of Non-Contradiction.

The reason there are only 5 movies on skepticism is because that philosophy is is downright boring and logically terminates in despair.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I would beg to differ. It didn't take me very many words at all to falsify atheistic naturalism via the Law of Non-Contradiction.

But you didn't. You did not specify any statements which are contradictory at the same time and in the same sense. You simply pulled the rabbit out of your hat.

Originally Posted by boxcar

The reason there are only 5 movies on skepticism is because that philosophy is is downright boring and logically terminates in despair.

Wrong. It's all about money. There is a built in audience for religious movies, a choir that will pay admission to be sung to. The audience for skeptical movies has to think and the average theist movie viewer does not want to do that.

“Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason so few engage in it.” -- Henry Ford

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

applied science
1
n the discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/applied%20science

Applied science is a discipline of science that applies existing scientific knowledge to develop more practical applications, like technology or inventions. Applied science is a discipline of science that applies existing scientific knowledge to develop more practical applications, like technology or inventions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science

1
: put to practical use applied art; especially : applying general principles to solve definite problems. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/applied
[emphasis added]

Science does not cause anything to happen. Science is a method to gain knowledge and a way to apply or use the acquired knowledge.

You are not welcome to your own facts Actor.

You seem to be saying that science has to cause things to happen otherwise ... what? You also seem to be unwilling to apply that standard to religion.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

You seem to be saying that science has to cause things to happen otherwise ... what? You also seem to be unwilling to apply that standard to religion.

Science causes nothing, it is a method to acquire knowledge. It is only a tool developed by our reasoning abilities. Knowledge which we can apply, by our reason, to do things or understand things.

Religion exceeds just acquiring knowledge. Look up the studies on meditation and prayer. They are responsible for physical changes to the brain and possibly the body.